Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 have been rejected.
Priority and Formal Matters
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. FR2107294 on 05 January 2024.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 06 July 2021 claiming benefit to FR2107294.
The preliminary amendments to the claims, received on 05 January 2024 have been received and are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a calculator” in claims 1 and 9-12. The specification provides that the calculator is an electronic circuit with corresponding hardware and software of a computer in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0050-51. Therefore, the claim limitations will be interpreted to be a hardware AND software computer program product stored on a memory (see MPEP § 2181(II)(B) wherein when the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both, a question can arise as to which mode of implementation supports the means-plus-function limitation. The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the examiner should not construe the limitation as covering pure software implementation).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-12 are drawn to a method, manufacture, or device, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a method for estimating the state of charge of at least one electrochemical element of a battery. Independent claim 1 recites a calculator, interpreted as a computer with corresponding software, for estimating the state of charge of at least one electrochemical element of a battery.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
obtaining values of the voltage, the current, the temperature and the capacitance of at least one electrochemical element,
computation of the value of the state of charge of at least one electrochemical element according to at least one technique, the technique being a first technique or a second technique,
the first technique including the following operations:
application of the first model on the value of the voltage, the current, the temperature and the capacitance of the at least one electrochemical element at the same instant, to obtain an estimated value of the state of charge, and
application of the correction function to the estimated value of the state of charge, to obtain a first computed value of the state of charge,
the second technique including the following operations:
computation of the value of the amount of charge accumulated by using the obtained values of current,
deduction of a second computed value of the state of charge by computing the ratio of the value of the accumulated charge quantity and the capacitance of the at least one electrochemical element,
determination of the most reliable technique among the first technique and the second technique according to a reliability criterion depending on the value of the statistical error of estimation of the model corresponding to the first model corrected by the correction function for the first computed value of the state of charge,
computation of the computed value of the state of charge according to the technique determined as being reliable if the value has not been computed previously, and
selection of the computed value of the state of charge according to the technique determined as the estimated value of the state of charge
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of collecting data, determining a model from two option based on statical error values, and calculating an estimate state of charge for a battery, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, wherein the method further includes a step of correcting the computed accumulated charge quantity used by the second technique so that the computation of the second technique leads to obtaining the first computed value of state of charge when the first technique is determined as being reliable.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, wherein the method further includes a step of correcting the value of current obtained by subtracting the measurement bias on the current, in order to obtain a corrected value of the current, the steps of computation being applied to the corrected value of the current.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the method further includes, when the first technique is determined as being reliable at an instant after a time interval during which the second technique has been determined as being reliable at each instant in the time interval, a step of determining the measurement bias on the current by using the difference of state of charge between the two techniques since the beginning of the time interval.
Dependent claim 7 recites, in part, wherein the at least one electrochemical element having a state of charge open circuit voltage characteristic with a flat portion, a flat portion being a portion wherein the variation of the open circuit voltage is less than 30 mV for a variation of at least 10% of the state of charge.
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, wherein the at least one electrochemical element comprises an active cathode material chosen from the following groups or mixtures thereof:
i) a compound with the formula LixFe1-yMyPO4(LFMP) where M is selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, and Mo; and 0.8≤x≤1.2; 0≤y≤0.6; ii) a compound with the formula LixMn1-y-zM′yM″zPO4 (LMP), where M′ and M″ are different from each other and are selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, and Mo, with 0.8≤x≤1.2; 0≤y≤0.6; 0≤z≤0.2; iii) a compound with the formula LixMn2-y-zNiyMzO4-d-cFc (LMNO), where M represents one or a plurality of elements chosen from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, and Mo; and 1≤x≤1.4; 0≤y≤0.6; 0≤z≤0≤d≤1; 0≤c≤1; iv) a compound with the formula LixMn2-y-zM′yM″zO4 (LMO), where M′ and M″ are chosen from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, and Mo; M′ and M″ being different from each other, and 1≤x≤1.4; 0≤y≤0.6; 0≤z≤0.2; and v) a compound with the formula LiVPO4F (LVPF).
Dependent claim 10 recites, in part, wherein the calculator is also adapted to correct the computed accumulated charge quantity used by the second technique so that the computation of the second technique results in obtaining the first computed state of charge value when the first technique is determined as being reliable.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 or 9 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claims 1 and 9-12 recite a calculator. The specification provides that the calculator is an electronic circuit with corresponding hardware and software of a computer in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0050-51. The use of a calculator, in this case to estimate the state of charge of the electrochemical element of a battery, only recites the calculator as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claim 11 recites a voltage sensor. Claim 11 recites a current voltage sensor. Claim 11 recites a temperature sensor. Claim 12 recites a battery comprising at least one electrochemical element. The specification does not have any specific hardware requirements for said sensors (see the Detailed Description in ¶ 0045-48) only describing the intended use of each sensor. The use of (1) a voltage sensor, in this case to measure the voltage at the terminals of at least one electrochemical element, (2) a current voltage sensor, in this case to measure the current at the terminals of said at least one electrochemical element, (3) a temperature sensor, in this case to measure the temperature of said at least one electrochemical element, (4) a battery comprising at least one electrochemical element only recites the voltage sensor, current voltage sense, temperature sensor, and battery comprising at least one electrochemical element as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a storing a first model giving from a value of voltage, a value of current, a value of temperature and a value of capacitance of the at least one electrochemical element the value of the state of charge of the at least one electrochemical element. Claims 1 and 9 recite storing a correction function giving, for each value of the state of charge, the statistical error of estimation by the first model. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a first model being a trained neural network. Claim 5 recites a wherein the neural network of the first model is a multilayer perceptron. Claim 6 recites a wherein the neural network of the first model includes a number of neurons less than or equal to 100. The specification provides a general description of a neural network algorithm with a fully connected multilayer perceptron performing in the expected capacity trained using generic techniques in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0055-76. The use of a trained neural network multilayer perceptron with neurons less than or equal to 100, in this case to predict a battery state of charge, only recites the neural network as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1 and 9-12 recite a calculator. Claims 1 and 9 recite a first model being a trained neural network. Claim 5 recites a wherein the neural network of the first model is a multilayer perceptron. Claim 6 recites a wherein the neural network of the first model includes a number of neurons less than or equal to 100.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claim 11 recites a voltage sensor. Claim 11 recites a current voltage sensor. Claim 11 recites a temperature sensor. Claim 12 recites a battery comprising at least one electrochemical element. The use of generic sensors for determining a voltage, current, or temperate for a battery is well understood, routine, and conventional at the time the invention was filed. This position is supported by Park et al., Review of state-of-the-art battery state estimation technologies for battery management systems of stationary energy storage systems, 20 J of Power Electronics 1526-1540 (2020) teaching on measured voltage, current, and temperature data collected from sensors for determining a state of charge for a battery in the § 2.1 State of charge (SOC) on p. 1527 and § 3.1 Research trends of SOC on p. 1531 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore the use of generic sensors for determining a voltage, current, or temperate for a battery is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a storing a first model giving from a value of voltage, a value of current, a value of temperature and a value of capacitance of the at least one electrochemical element the value of the state of charge of the at least one electrochemical element. Claims 1 and 9 recite storing a correction function giving, for each value of the state of charge, the statistical error of estimation by the first model. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-12 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections-35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “determination of the most reliable technique among the first technique and the second technique according to a reliability criterion depending on the value of the statistical error of estimation of the model corresponding to the first model”. The term “most” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably ascertain what values are being compared as the statical error estimation is only determined for the model of the first technique. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “computation of the computed value of the state of charge according to the technique determined as being reliable” (emphasis added) is the same as the “most reliable technique” or another reliability standard not previously disclosed.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 9 recite “computation of the value of the state of charge of at least one electrochemical element according to at least one technique,… the first technique including the following operations:… application of the correction function to the estimated value of the state of charge…. the second technique including the following operations” and “determination of the most reliable technique among the first technique and the second technique according to a reliability criterion depending on the value of the statistical error of estimation of the model corresponding to the first model corrected by the correction function for the first computed value of the state of charge”. It is unclear if the combination of claim limitations require that the first method be performed in order to apply the correction function required by the determination of the most reliable technique step and the determination step is not performed if the second technique is selected from the two. That is to say, the meets and bounds of the instant claims are unclear which of the following interpretations is intended: (1) the first and second technique are performed, the statistical error of the first is determined to be “the most reliable technique”, and the state of charge is assigned as the first technique’s outcome; (2) only the first technique is performed, the statistical error of the first is determined to be “the most reliable technique”, and the state of charge is assigned as the first technique’s outcome; (3) the second technique is only performed, no determination is made as the correction function for the first computed value is never determined; no state of charge is assigned as the determination is not made due to no correction function occurring; or (4) the first or second technique is performed, one is determined to be “most reliable”, neither are determined as “being reliable” and no state of charge is assigned.
Examiner notes that the specification provides support for different permutations and configurations of the use of the first v second technique (see at least the mathematical calculation for determining each error values at least ¶ 0083, ¶ 0088, ¶ 0091 for the first technique, ¶ 0100 for the second technique) that differ substantively from the claim language as currently drafted (see at least ¶ 0135-136 and ¶ 0138-139 that requires the first technique to be performed and evaluated, if the first technique meets a reliability standard, assign the state of charge to the first technique output without any consideration of the second technique’s output or reliability, BUT if determined to not meet a reliability standard, proceeding to the second technique). While under MPEP § 2173.02(III)(B) Examiners are encouraged to suggest claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of the language used, Examiner cannot reasonably speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation (see MPEP § 2143.03(I)) as no claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification …, and therefore indefinite (MPEP § 2173.03).
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 depend on claims 1 and 9 and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of the independent claims. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mansour Sheikhan et al., State of charge neural computational models for high energy density batteries in electric vehicles, 22 Neural Computing and Applications 1171-1180 (2013) teaching on a hybrid optimized structure neural model for predicting a battery state of charge and a coulometric measurement method (referred to as a coulometric algorithm considering the degree of accuracy of the model in the § I Introduction on p. 1172, § 2.1 Traditional SOC estimation methods on p. 1173, and § 6 Optimized hybrid neural model for SOC estimation considering aging effect on p. 1176
V Pop et al., State-of-the-art of battery state-of-charge determination, 16 Measurement Science and Technology R93-R110 (2005) teaching on the Coulomb counting technique v an artificial neural network technique for predicting a battery state of charge in the § 3. History of state-of-charge indication on p. R97, § 5. Possible state-of-charge indication methods on p. R101, and § 5.3. Adaptive systems on p. R105-106
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights